However, even during his day, he was not respected as a painter. He was deemed an "illustrator" for two reasons. One, he painted for a magazine cover. Which was deemed a low art. And two, the reference for his paintings were photographs, unlike the master painters of yesteryear.
Still, Eockwell's ability to capture the finite detail of a boy's face, the comedic smile of a girl with a black eye, the infamous scene of a Thanksgiving dinner, are transfixed in our memories as classics.
I don't see how photo-realism cannot produce some amazing art in its own right today.
For me it's if I've seen this art style 500000 times(furry art) already Or if the art style is too abstract to the point where it isn't cool or beautiful or cute or realistic enough to grab my interest. Than when I see it I'm like. Next!
Norman Rockwell would disagree.
However, even during his day, he was not respected as a painter. He was deemed an "illustrator" for two reasons. One, he painted for a magazine cover. Which was deemed a low art. And two, the reference for his paintings were photographs, unlike the master painters of yesteryear.
Still, Eockwell's ability to capture the finite detail of a boy's face, the comedic smile of a girl with a black eye, the infamous scene of a Thanksgiving dinner, are transfixed in our memories as classics.
I don't see how photo-realism cannot produce some amazing art in its own right today.
For me it's if I've seen this art style 500000 times(furry art) already Or if the art style is too abstract to the point where it isn't cool or beautiful or cute or realistic enough to grab my interest. Than when I see it I'm like. Next!
Or pic